Would you send this AI meeting note?
Naomi said, “A $30,000 fall made me lose sleep.” The draft says she accepts a 30% loss and instructs the adviser to invest all $120,000 cash.
The question
Naomi Ruiz is a fictional 47-year-old resident of New Jersey, United States. Her spouse may receive a UK job offer in 18 months; no move is decided. This is an interview practice packet, not a plan for a real person.
Naomi accepts a 30% loss. Invest the full $120,000 cash balance. Retirement in five years is feasible.
| USD | |
|---|---|
| Cash | 120000 |
| Diversified investment accounts | 600000 |
| Listed employer shares | 300000 |
Account types, holdings, ownership, tax basis, restrictions and liabilities are not yet supplied.
“Give your next question or action, and explain why.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Find the unit error
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Check the amount against the quote
The strong move. The error changes the meaning by an order of magnitude. Neither figure completes a risk assessment.
Treat 30% as confirmed tolerance
Tempting, but it misses something. The draft substitutes a percentage for a dollar amount and changes the client’s meaning.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The client named $30,000, not 30%. On known assets that is about 2.94%; 30% would be $306,000.”
Why it works: The error changes the meaning by an order of magnitude. Neither figure completes a risk assessment.
Step 2: Restore the constraint
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Restore dated needs
The strong move. A fluent summary can omit the condition that controls the decision.
Polish the grammar only
Tempting, but it misses something. Grammar edits leave the omitted tuition and reserve unresolved.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The note omits tuition and the reserve. I would restore those facts and remove the unsupported instruction to invest all cash.”
Why it works: A fluent summary can omit the condition that controls the decision.
Step 3: Confirm with the client
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Confirm the client’s meaning
The strong move. Human review includes checking meaning, not just arithmetic.
Infer a risk category from one answer
Tempting, but it misses something. A single description of discomfort does not establish a complete risk assessment.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would ask Naomi to confirm what she meant by the loss and what it would affect before recording a conclusion.”
Why it works: Human review includes checking meaning, not just arithmetic.
Step 4: Send through the approved process
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Review and confirm before sending
The strong move. A draft is not authorization to act.
Send because the tool is approved
Tempting, but it misses something. An approved tool can still produce an incorrect note. Its output needs review.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Remove the retirement promise, separate facts from open questions, and review the corrected summary before sharing it through the firm’s approved process.”
Why it works: A draft is not authorization to act.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Do not send this draft.
- Because
- It changes a dollar amount into a percentage and omits cash needs.
- What would change it
- A corrected record and client confirmation would support the next assessment, not an automatic trade.
Common traps
- The draft substitutes a percentage for a dollar amount and changes the client’s meaning.
Check your answer
- I caught the dollar/percent error.
- I restored tuition and reserve.
- I removed unsupported conclusions.
- I kept review separate from permission to act.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026